Rapture Ready dudes okay with violence of "300" but not 20 seconds of sex.

[Deep13]

http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?t=294360

"Yes there is supposed to be a sex scene between King Leonidas and the Queen. That's really too bad. I wish movies nowadays could portray the subplots involving relationships and love, without the actual act of love. It's a waste of screentime and it ruins it for me.

"However, the violence bring it on! lol
I heard this movie was very bloody and violent. Someone on the IMDB website that saw a pre-screening of it, said it far exceeds Gladiator in blood and violence (a tough task).

"This movie is getting very positive ratings and reviews. Hopefully the sex scene is short. I'll step out to go to the restroom when it pops up on screen."

Act of love between married heterosexual couple possibly creating life: BAD

Hundreds of people horribly slaughtered: GOOD

I found it odd in a homo-erotic sort of way that one of the posters is looking foreward to a cinema "dripping in testosterone."

Also note the poster who says it is not a factually accurate movie like Braveheart.

[NightWatcher]

1. my dad and step mom were the same way

hundreds of heads blowing up...fine.
half of a nipple...turn your heads!!!

[noonwitch]

9. My parents were the opposite, although, really, they censored little

My mom had no qualms about letting us watch movies like "Animal House" or "Caddyshack", but didn't like the violent movies. Then again, they let me see "The Godfather" when I was about 7. I remember asking my dad "what's he doing to the bridesmaid?" about Sonny's sex scene during the wedding reception.

[skygazer]

2. That's always made me scratch my head in wonder

Strange priorities. And anyone who thinks they're learning history from Hollywood is an idiot. :rofl:

[Oeditpus Rex]

3. Jealousy

They've probably never had 20 seconds of sex.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

4. According to some people

it's over in 10 seconds :P

[Omphaloskepsis]

7. Please stop talking to my girlfriend..

[leftofthedial]

5. this is evidence for the claim some people make

that religion is a mental illness

[Esra Star]

49. It is a psychosis not necessarily an illness. nt

[NewJeffCT]

6. I liked Braveheart & 300, but neither were factually accurate

But, both led me to look more into their main subjects - William Wallace and the battle of Thermopylae.

[Deep13]

22. Same here ...

...except I already knew a little about the Spartans. More than Frank Miller does apparently.

What I find hard to get past it Braveheart is the fact that Isabella never met the elder Edward. He died before she ever got to England.

[realisticphish]

30. and they weren't wearing plaid kilts at the time

and the movie had no bridge at the damn battle of Stirling Bridge...

:grr: Sorry, History Geek Rage moment, there :)

[Kutjara]

39. What irritated me more was, when they unveiled the statue...

...of William Wallace in front of the new Scottish Parliament building a few years back, it looked like Mel Gibson. That enraged quite a few people, let me tell you.

It's one thing for Hollywood to screw up history, but when the very decendents of historical figures start believing Hollywood in preference to the historical record, that's a whole other kettle of haggis.

[Deep13]

41. ouch!

He was an agent for Robert the Bruce anyway and not the nice sensitive dude in the film. He was a blood-thirsty butcher. He took the skin from one of his victims, a strip from the heel to the scalp, and made a sword baldric with it.

[realisticphish]

44. ok, THAT'S fucked up

What moron decided on that?

edit:

Good God

[Kutjara]

45. Quite a work of art, no?

It looks like a large version of those action figures they used to give away in boxes of Fruity Pebbles. I can only hope it was sculpted by a siz-year-old with a poor grasp of history.

[realisticphish]

46. that's the worst part

it's like My First Statue(TM)

If it was a really good statue that looked like Mel Gibson it would still suck, but when they can't get limbs to look normal or proportional, and that idiotic look on his face...

[Kutjara]

47. Truly. The inscription on the base should read:

"CONSTIPATION!" That would fit Mel's expression much more closely.

[realisticphish]

48. LOL

William Wal-lax, the laxitive that will prep you to fight ANY Englishman.

[Deep13]

40. No, their portrayal of Stirling...

...looked more like descriptions of Bannockburn I read.

[realisticphish]

43. yeah

But Stirling Bridge would have been so cool to portray; probably not glorious enough, I guess. You know, hiding, then attacking and slaughtering the English while they were off their guard, trapped on a narrow bridge.

[Deep13]

8. Dear Fundies: Please read Song of Solomon.

It is in that book you purport to revere.

What's the deal? The sex scene was brief and not exactly explicit. Do they just want to pretend that sexuality doesn't exist? If they really support "traditional" nuclear families then they cannot think sex is a vice. It portrayed a married, heterosexual couple so none of their technical objections apply.

Now here's the real question. Did the posters really close their eyes or go to the restroom during the sex scene like they said or did they watch with eager anticipation be were disappointed when it proved so short?

[Zookeeper]

16. What were they actually doing in the Men's restroom....

while they were avoiding the sight of heterosexual sex? Hmmmmm? :evilgrin:

[xchrom]

10. braveheart was accurate?

:rofl:

[Deep13]

11. Well, sure.

You don't doubt St. Mel do you?

[xchrom]

12. me? doubt mel -- no -- not for a minute.

and i always learn something from rapture ready freepers.:spray:

[pdx_prog]

13. I love how...

they still cling to the belief that the founding fathers meant for the U.S. to be governed by Christian beliefs.

[Deep13]

19. The founding skeptics.

Most of them were deists simply because at the time no one could conceive of a way that life could arise from lifelessness. Had they lived now, they would be atheists in practice, if not in name.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

24. so true...

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

27. Hell, I'm a deist now and it still works out.

My poor human brain just has a hard time thinking that there isn't or wasn't some greater being or cosmic power, be it an actual God or just energy

[Deep13]

33. There was energy, all right.

The big bang emitted a lot of it. Granted we do not know what precipitated that event. Still, a deliberate creator causes more problems that it solves. An creator able to create a universe as complex as this one would itself need to be a lot more complex to manage the task. The question becomes, therefore, what caused the creator?

No divinity is needed to understand either the origin or development of life. It is easily explained through ordinary chemisty being done on a global scale. Life is more unlikely than throughing a perfect Yahtzee with one through. But with billions of throws goining on all over the Earth for millions of years, the unlikely becomes inevitable. In fact, the evolution of existing life, natural selection could not work as observed with any directing power behind it.

[Initech]

14. Ah, the good ol' pro-life crowd at it again!

:rofl:

If these people really were pro-life, you think the hundreds of people getting slaughtered would be a bad thing, and the sex scene would be a good thing.

[Mr. Blonde]

32. I must be a real weirdo

I like both. Although to maintain balance I hope there are hundreds of sex scenes involving Queen Gorgo on the SE DVD.

[Deja Q]

15. Hmmm... I agree with his sentiment about romance vs lust...

But then I'd bet he would whine about "it's a chick flick"...

Gratuitous bloodlust for the sake of showing blood in any possible way is just wrong. Rather like "Gladiator" and "Passion of the Christ" where the backdrop of a story is the justification of spurting arteries and other things. Especially when the former has no storyline whatsoever (it relies on people wanting more blood being spilt to be 'entertained' and the Roman empire wasn't what anybody with a brain would call 'civilized' anyway, so why the frig would any dumbbell want to celebrate it? That's right, John Logan - the guy who couldn't write anything even remotely clever if his life depended on it) and the latter HAS a history but the nitwit who made it preferred to show Jesus merely as a punching bag; the heathenous self-aggrandizing cretin...

I don't mind violence when it's calculated, constrained, with realistic results, germane to the plot, not being gross every other minute for the sake of being gross (constrained), intelligently handled and meant to show the character is evil and that violence in real life is best avoided -- and not celebrated.

[Deep13]

20. I'm not willing to call any fictional portrayal evil.

I don't think there is anything wrong with violent movies as long as the viewr understands that it is not a model for real life. I think it can be quite cathardic. Anyway, history is violent and it is dishonest to disquise that fact.* What I find objectionable is when violence is sanitized and it is made to look better than it actually is. The truth is the Romans were highly civilized. They lived in a highly organized society where individuals fulfulled specialized roles. Violence or the threat of it kept the state together. There was external violence directed at foreigners and internal violence in the form of police power. Not much has changed in that regard. This is not intended to be a value judgment, but my own observation of an objective fact. I want to emphasize that. I am not saying violence is good. I am merely saying it is a reality of human existence.

I just think it is bizarre that the destructive one is not only tolerated, but celebrated, while the peaceful and fun one is treated as if it is contagious disease that can be spread by movie screens.

*I don't mean to imply that the only time violence on the screen is allowed is when it is necessary to depict a historic fact. I just mean that it is part of our human nature and therefore the portayal of violence is part of a portayal of that nature.

[GirlinContempt]

25. "the Roman empire wasn't what anybody with a brain would call 'civilized' anyway"

Are you for serious?

Edward Gibbons, Vere Gordon Childe, Theodor Mommsen, William McGaughey, Peter Heather, and pretty much every anthropologist, they all have no brains?

[Robb]

28. "Guard!"

"Do we have any cwucifixions today?"

[GirlinContempt]

29. Here! I've got an idea! Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb

which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans, but that he can have the RIGHT to have babies

[Deep13]

37. jailor's pet!

[xmas74]

50. They said that?

I'm so glad I didn't click on the link.

[GirlinContempt]

51. Very Victorian attitude

:)

[treestar]

17. Oh, the good 'ole Rapture Ready board!

I hadn't heard of it in a while!

I guess they're looking forward to 7/7/07!

[Left Is Write]

18. I'd much rather my children saw a sex scene than a bloody violent one.

I'm so afraid of my kids getting desensitized to screen violence.

[Deep13]

21. I agree. Children should not be exposed to a lot of screen violence.

It warps their sensibilities. I wonder if that is why the public is so callous toward outsiders.

[Generic Brad]

23. Obviously. 20 seconds of sex is not nearly enough

If I was offered a choice of watching "300" or 20 seconds of sex I would probably choose "300". I'm not a pigeon, after all.

[Deep13]

36. Obviously. No one wants to be a "minute man."

:evilgrin:

[Akoto]

26. So, for those who have seen it ...

Are those 20 seconds of sex graphic enough for a mature adult to make a big deal over? Or is this just outcry from the Ned Flanders bunch?

Not that I'm asking for any particular reason. :evilgrin:

[Deep13]

35. Honestly, I can't imagine Ned Flanders being that offended by it. n/t

[chaska]

31. Uh, wasn't gay sex more the rule with those guys? Seriously.

[Deep13]

34. Probably.

No just gay sex either, but pedastery.

[shadowknows69]

38. I thought the violence, while extreme, was very cartoonish in a way

the blood flying looked almost, and probably intentionally, like cheap 60's cell animation.

[GoneOffShore]

42. Pretty whacky people over there.

I took a look and found this:

Did anyone else notice the goat-man creature playing a flute and sitar in the Persian court scene with the hunchback? What was up with that? I really got a bad feeling off of this movie. It started when they were showing those priests in the temple (in the begining) and they all looked like they were demons or something. I noticed this theme throughout the movie. The goat thing seriously shook me up for a few minutes. I just kept feeling like I was really getting convicted while watching it. It just seemed like there were a lot of evil overtones in it.

So, here's someone who is so shaky in their "faith" that the mere viewing of a movie could "convict" (?) them.

A definite woowoo board.